Not that it matters to them, but wouldn't it be illegal to use the background database to do that kind of search? Before everyone says it, I know that it doesn't matter, and that they wouldn't hesitate to do it legal or otherwise, I'm just curious.

My understanding is that background check info is required by law to be destroyed - but 4473's must be kept for years.

Gun control zealots would never infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

And the IRS would never target conservative groups.

And if you want to disobey the Constitution of the United States you should be prepared to face the consequences. :munchin

In which state will it begin???




Gun Registration: Break the law, pay the price
February 14, 2014|Editorial, The Hartford Courant

Connecticut has a gun problem.

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

That's the deadline imposed by a tough bipartisan gun-safety law passed by the legislature last year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-...ssault-weapons

Hopefully, it will begin in Arizona.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sta...a4bcf887a.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1294p.pdf

Imagine the influx of patriots into Connecticut to help those patriots resist. Those who violate the Constitution should be prepared to face the consequences.

Not all that far from Lexington and Concord. Just saying...

Pat

Some unfortunate citizens (safe targets) might be made example of early. These unfortunate folks may need (among other things) legal help and legal defense fund raising.

If the state of CT continues down this path -- then escalation is on them.

The Hartford Courant does not realize the flames that they are fanning.

The POTUS has already set a precedent on obeying the letter of the law, with his disregard for implementing certain aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act as it was written. What is there two sets of rules out there?

Bingo..... if the liberals want a war this is how it starts.

Molon Labe

I found this from 2013 interesting in that it appears that CT is more concerned with registration (and its enforcement) rather than SENTENCING those convicted of other crimes while carrying a weapon.

Guess it makes for better window dressing to target lawful citizens, who by nature comply, than unlawful "scofflaws".

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0186.htm

I would encourage and support it.:lifter

BS:

Do you actually own a firearm?

TR

For the record sir, I lost them in a fishing accident...

It is not "neat" by a long run. It is deadly serious. People asserting their rights is not new in this country or in others. Look at Syria, Libya, Egypt etc... The people in those places thought they were being held down by abusive leaders. They did something about it. Are we so different?

The purposeful non-registration of ARs IS the peaceful resistance that you are referring to. Are you suggesting gun owners should hand over their weapons to the government, at a request?

That would be neat, but that sort of thing only works really well for left leaning individuals like the OWS crowd. You have to remember that those of us who lean to the right you know the "bitter clingers" work for a living. Somebody has to pay taxes in this country.

So then you would rather live on your knees, than die on your feet ....

You might want to look at changing your user name to Ba-Ba-Ba-Broardsword.

:munchin

George Washington would disagree, so would I.

Shays' Rebellion seemed to be a good teachable moment.

Anyone here live in a "Liberal Democracy?" Just checking.

Last I heard, it was a "constitutional Republic", though looking at it you may or may not be able to tell....

Let's not forget The Battle of Athens.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31808.php

:munchin

The soapbox comes before the cartridge box.

Has it not been tried already?

TR

The time for protest ended when Obama got re-elected.

Nancy Grace rips Piers Morgan a new one
 

Apparently Nancy Grace doesn't like Englishman Piers Morgan commenting on 2nd Ammendment issues in the U.S. I don't either. I thought her comment about British soldiers and armed Patriots was spot on. :D

The Limey can go home any time he wants to. :p

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/nancy-grace...150835400.html

So... are you going in with the first wave?

Seems like we re almost there again. Do you really trust our elections? Dead people voting, undocumented people voting..... At what point do the people draw the line?